Its Howdy Doody time

It's Howdy Doody time

By JAY AMBROSE Scripps Howard News Service 25-APR-06

If Paul Krugman put on a Howdy Doody costume, had pictures taken of himself and then ran several of those photos in the space usually devoted to his New York Times column, it wouldn't be more laughable, more beside the point, more a comment on the decline of a once-great newspaper, than the stuff he often writes.

Take for instance a recent outing in which he took on global warming. He did not bother to engage the issue so much as to employ two logical fallacies, one of which is his very favorite technique, the ad hominem attack, delivering swift kicks at the character or motives of people with whom you disagree. Maybe Krugman gets it that you don't prove or disprove anything with this method of argument, but if he does, he apparently doesn't care.

He started his column with a slam at Exxon-Mobile, which is pretty safe _ how many fans do big oil companies have? The fact that this company sent funds to scientists offering contrary views to the conventional wisdom about warming is to him ipso facto evidence of something dirty afoot, and he doesn't stop there. What ensued, he said, was 'fake research' that was picked up by 'right-wing' pundits and quoted by straight-news reporters.

For corporations to send funds to scientists in self-defense against the possibility of overreaching policies that could be ruinous for them is not corrupt, and the scientists who accept those funds are no more prima facie frauds than the scientists whose loudly voiced worries help them secure government grants. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not do 'fake research' and is among a number of reputable doubters who have not been enriched by Exxon-Mobile. He is one of the foremost climatologists in the world, and has pointed convincingly to the uncertainty of various claims by the global warming alarmists.

Krugman does not mention Lindzen in his piece, although he does mention Michael Crichton, dismissing his provocative challenges to disaster predictions because Crichton writes fiction. He might have noted that Crichton taught anthropology at Cambridge and also happens to be a physician _ a demonstration, one would think, of scientific skills _ and that he spent three years researching global warming prior to producing a novel on the subject. One of Crichton's most interesting points is the unreliability of computerized models that try to replicate climatological forces and what they will do even when it's clear that science's grasp of those forces is not remotely complete.

Krugman's other logical fallacy is appeal to authority _ his insistence that there is a scientific consensus about global warming, as if many of the most important scientific discoveries throughout history have not flown in the face of consensus.

It's true that on difficult scientific subjects, many of us who write columns fall back on experts, but what Krugman says is one part uninteresting, one part questionable and one part self-refuting. The uninteresting part is his statement that most climate scientists agree the Earth is warming. Of course. It is always warming or cooling, and it has been warming for a long time. Next he says there is a consensus that the cause is human activity. Maybe, but there are many scientists who have said it is far from demonstrated just how much of a contributing factor human activity might be. Finally, he tells us, 'Climate experts still aren't sure how much hotter the world will get, and how fast.'

If Krugman were actually up on global warming, he would know that this is the heart of the dispute. If warming is taking place as slowly as some evidence indicates, there is little cause for the near-panic of some of those carrying on about it.

Krugman employs one other highly objectionable technique in this column, the use of misinformation. He says the Bush administration 'has done nothing' about warming when, as columnist John Tierney recently observed, its agreements with China and India on new technologies, its emphasis on nuclear power and still other steps may offer far more hope than the Kyoto agreement adopted in Europe.

I'd prefer it if Krugman donned the Howdy Doody costume instead of writing this tripe, because it tends to further the cause of those seeking the kinds of warming 'solutions' that could far more detrimental to human welfare than warming itself.

1. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=Richard_S._Lindzen 'Lindzen charged 'oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services;''

So Mr. Ambrose just lied.

2. If there are a number of reputable scientists not enriched by Exxon-Mobil, then why doesn't he list them?

Again, a right-winger attacking a person, and by proxy trying to attack global warming. Because, guess what? AGW cannot be attacked on the basis of the science, which is the only thing that determines whether the theory is right or not. Here's an example: if a known liar tells me that leaves are green, should I believe him? No. Is it proof that leaves aren't green? No. I happen to know that many leaves are green, and if I wanted to know for sure, I would look at the leaves. I would not find the information from either the liar, or those telling me that person is a liar, and must be wrong. So if you're disinclined to believe environmentalists, fine. If you don't want to believe Krugman, fine. But you will also not get to the truth by attacking Krugman. The truth is found in the science, period. And the science says AGW is real. End of story.

How long before you post another useless opinion piece by a non-scientist

Dan, you wouldn't know the science if it bit you on the ass and you merely take the word of the kool aid drinkers of AGW because there are many here so let's get off the AGW science religion. Those that write about this sort of stuff are semi-intelligent and can recognize bullshit in the media better than I can. But not you.

Maybe you should tell Krugman, Dan. He seems to not realize this

Science isn't a conclusion, it's a process. The process indicates no basis at all for AGW hysteria. Sorry to burst your bubble.

'He might have noted that Crichton taught anthropology at Cambridge and also happens to be a physician.'

Wrong, Crichton has never practiced medicine.

'Krugman's other logical fallacy is appeal to authority'

The author makes his own appeals to authority. Even claiming Crichton as an authority. What nonsence.

Blah blah blah says James. Post science, not opinion. It's not about me, it's not about Krugman, it's not about environmentalists, it's not about any of the groups or people your favorite right-wing bullshitters want to yammer on about. It's about one thing, and one thing only: science. Nothing else is

Fair enough.

Science is a process from which conclusions can be drawn. The best science right now says AGW is real, and is going to wreak havoc on the planet unless we stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Sorry to burst your bubble.

It was your type that said Easter Island would never run out of trees. No doubt those that expressed concern were labeled as hysterical.

I *love* that these people are too stupid to have a sense of irony!

You mean this Jay Ambrose?
http://united-states-of-earth.com/article.asp? MenuID=2513

Ahhh ... American imperialism at its greatest!

Oh, no. Another post from Claudius Denk, appearing from Jim McGinn's computer (IP number 71.142.250.244)

Does Jim know someone is breaking into his computer and posting on Usenet? Should someone tell him?

Perhaps Jim has had a complete breakdown, and the Claudius Denk personality doesn't even know that the Jim McGinn personality is posting here too? Perhaps we should check some of the other personalities posting to this newsgroup, and see if there are any others using Jim's computer?

We want full disclosure!